- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:22:14 -0700
- To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
At 10:22 +0200 23/09/08, Raphaël Troncy wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Thanks David, I mostly agree with what you wrote.
>Some comments inlined.
>
>>>There are two solutions, perhaps, to this
>>>problem: (a) relate all media annotation
>>>systems by means of a firm semantic
>>>background, so that a machine translator can
>>>do the best it can ('the tag called title is
>>>the formal_name of the work', 'the tag called
>>>author is the formal_name of the person who
>>>created the words of the work'); (b) have a
>>>small set of tags which we encourage should be
>>>implemented in any standard.
>>>
>>>We prefer (b) now; (a) is a research project,
>>>not a standards activity. As a basis here,
>>>we'd like to consider the very-commonly-used
>>>ID3 tags (to the extent that they are defined).
>>
>>Our charter
>>http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html
>>says that we ought to develop a "simple lingua
>>franca" between existing standards. I translate
>>"simple" into "also useable *as is*", that is
>>into what you describe as (b). I also agree
>>that we should concentrate on (b), and I think
>>there is a some agreement in this group about
>>that. What do others think?
>
>I'm not sure I agree with this distinction. How
>will you classify the RDF Schema of Dublin Core
>(DC) [1]? How will you classifiy the IPTC Photo
>Metadata Standard [2] that does contain a formal
>definition of the properties as well as
>particular implementations (NAR, XMP)?
>
>I think we want to do something between a) and b).
>ID3 is a good and bad example: the format does
>not enforce the meaning of specific properties,
>and anyone can add new properties. But there is
>a de facto set of properties commonly used, and
>this is your b) approach. However, users do not
>consistently used the properties. For example,
>when you need to describe your classical music
>songs, you don't know if you should only use the
>'author' property, or add a 'composer',
>'performer', etc property. There is hence
>interop problem with ID3.
>The MMSEM XG has proposed a formal definition of
>the most commonly used ID3 tags [3] using the
>Music Ontology [4]. This is the a) approach.
I agree we can be tighter than ID3, while
consistent with it. (Or at least not
inconsistent with it!)
--
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 18:23:20 UTC